tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 1, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EST
last week. you can weigh in on the issue. will it helpçu! or hurt the economy? if you have called us and the last 30 days, give us a chance to phone in this morning. you can also reach us online at çç a tweed @i] twitter.com, c-qspanw it click on our home page, connecting with c-span, facebook, youtube, and other ways as well. çç talkint the 2011 budget. it is thei]çç start of thew3qs on the fiscal year 2011 budget. on the fiscal year 2011 budget. justç briefly for us lay outnbá
tricky budgetçó balancing act of gqçççcreatinp addressing mounting concerns about themç deficit. t(this budget is going toç ince a lot of job creation measures, t%oincluding tax incentivesq fr hiring,çó for businesses to hire employees that we saw last week. numerous other tax breaks, it infrastructure. giá&y, what is the most surprising element in the budget for you? guest: the president really laid out a lot of that elements.
the freeze and domestic expanding -- historic plea is not that big of the deal, but not force democrats to make hard decisions about what wins and loses. if you freeze domestic spending but you also want to increase infrastructure spending, various programs to going to have to take a hit. host: what about on the revenue side? what does the budget say about taxes? before he wants to extend the 2001, and the 2003 tax cuts for middle-class families but let the tax cut expire for the high tax rate. that is something the republicans have been against from the start. but the democrats say it is a key piece of reining in the deficit. the interesting thing on the deficit as well as much of the heavy lifting is not done in the budget proposal. the white house and congress are
now leaning on this debt commission the president said he would create last week, executive order, in order to force reductions in spending and possibly tax increases next year. that is what they are looking to. host: by all accounts, the debt commission, they would have to wait by end of the year to get anything out of that? does that exactly. we may not seeñrovementçmyç ul late in theçóçó year. for instance, on taxes, not sure democrats will even move a tax bill before the election. host: we are covering a lot of events of budget releases. give us a little you were died of what do you think will be sort of the most interesting piece to watch -- defense budget at the white house, state department, where are you looking? guest: some of the most unjust and things will be when omb, budget director peter orszag will talk about how things are supposed to work later today.
you will also be saying -- he said yesterday the white house will be proposing to cut about 120 spendingçxd programs from çbudget, to eliminate programs they don'tçç work or can be streamlined. i think that ps where you will see some interesting news on okççwhat they think endicott d what programs will take a hit. host: thank you for joining us this morning. our question for you, again, will the spending freeze help or hurt the economy. a look here at "politico," "wars squeeze obama budget." looking at a "role call." writing that several liberal lawmakers said it will make the proposed freeze is premature. with the economy still on shaky ground and million still unemployed.
a quick look at defense news, a publication that covers pentagon spending and pentagon news, few cuts in dod's draft 11 budget. ñrfinal bid to open "the washington times" this morning, their lead editorial, i should say, obama's fake freeze folly. the views of the editorial writers of ""washington times." let's hear from leesburg,
virginia, nina on the independent mind. you are on the air. spring lake -- north carolina, barry on the democrats' line. caller: i think it's done properly, that is tomçç say, e of the special interests can -- host: you are on the air. if the special interestsç don't come through and get their hands on the money first. i'm not saying let's give it away to all the people out there, too, i don't want to do that, either. ççwhat we have to do is figurt who really needs it so we can't be giving it to all the corporate people and we can't just give it to all of the people on programs and stuff. host: new york, this is amy. go ahead. good morning, you're on the air. make sure you mute your television or radio.
caller: ok. yeah, i would like to know and a spending freeze what cuts and defense are coming if there are any. it seems like everything gets cut, anything that has anything to do with anything humanitarian or the welfare of people or expansion of jobs but defense department is never discussed about getting back, even line item budcá checks on them. if we were just too cutbacks some of this money to be -- being spent, it would be -- the line host: amy, thank you for your comments. here is the headline in "usa today." they go over a couple of top
line items -- michigan, randy, on our democrats learned. go ahead with your comments. caller: i would like to thank you very much for c-span. i appreciate it. it is a good show. i think a spending freeze will hurt to. doing it this time with the way the economy is. the bill i thinkñrw3 we shouldwp xdoff the cliff and spend everythingç got? v:çççççççnope. t( butçów3ñrç tot(xznxçt(ç;h#rg time.
w3çif you want to make the budt better -- zççfhik4"óoóçxdh÷÷f the books like theiim previous d sq%ei+ let's get intellectually honest about the budget, it looks so bad because the actually brought the sunlight to some of the costs of the previous administration kept in the dark. that is my thought on the deal. thank you very much. ççcaller:çw3 enjoy yourçñr ÷too much money --h money. the spending freeze, notç only should they stop the spending becausexd he raisedç the moneyo highw3/mkogç what the stimulus stimulus and last year, they put so muchççç money into?:oççç it isç/ook like charles krauthr talked about last week in his column, they raised spending 30% or 40% and then put the spending
freeze in. even if he put the freeze on spending it would raise like 20% orç 30% from the previous year it he should put theç freezekn and cutw3 likeokçq)ç 30%, firee hundred thousand workers --ççe government needs to wind down and not getw3ç bigger. host: thanks, mario, your views are shared by açç viewerç in [;wçç çççw3x)/zçq çrepublicanç line, dan and kas city. ]ç?knqt caller almost to the word. ?knqt there is nothing else really to say. çthe lady called[kç an ear the only thing authorized by the constitution is the military. and that is the only thing that is authorized. that is the reason why we have a
uç0%300n corporate bailouts. uç0%300n listw3çt( isñooçt(ç$' liquútd çóç?;so that it is less moneyg in to the government. dö"4qu&eon çççi]simultaneouslyçw3okçe funding in the trillions/0 w3çand on top ofi]çi]ç all oe haveçqç a mass of growing unemployedw3t(xdço4/íçwiokkç permanently unemployedw3ççç # çwe have corporations that are çleaving by the hundreds every year to go over toççw3ç chi|ç w3çcentralymoy?7vñgnç ameria andç so forth. ç;ç the government.
sq%ei+ çççoknow your comments on hoa çappliesç>çkç tot(ç the b3 spending. çóççmore e" more[çóoó monevçp this$h)ñááer(tt(ççtmeanwhilóoh as more money going out, no money coming in. not as much money coming in wmoçthrough workers paying taxd it is gettingççç theç govert into debt. to tell you the truth, of m now is failing. okw#kçu!capitalism[çóç, bee corporations arew3i] running am çthen if it tries welfare capitalism, which is propping up social programs, trying to prop up the people to give the money so they go out and spend, that is going to put the government
into debt. so we have a serious, serious problem here. host: thanks for the input. here is the front page of "the washington post." the lead story on the budget. obama budget callsxdt( for jobsl and tax changes. but i have a chart on the numbers. i will read you a bitç from article this morning as well. çw3 t(ççç greenville,ç ohio, dawn on our independent line. caller: i don't promote -- believe it will really hurt or help. it is going to be a small amount. qç&jbeing the president is tho of the united statesç, itç wod make a bigçç impression onçe
if they would takei] a 10% cut right from the president down to the very low-paying government jobs. and i thank you very much. host: detroit, next up, republican collar. itç caller:xdçw3 i risk theyd address the cost overruns in the military budget. theseç people take out contracs and they run up billions overhk what is a contract? i]t(the otherçi] thing, on the military, where areç all the nuclear weapons fundedi]ñruñ isn'tqbrçw3 that in the energy department bill? the military spreading things out how -- hiding all of their money andmy just wasting so mucq w3otoki]çhost:ççmçt( on then particular, and little bit more from inside "defenses."w3( ççhelicopter manufacturers loo also they talkqw3 about what the policies of the pentagon is
going to date. cards with today's release of the budget, the pentagon will release, unveil their xdquadrennial defense review tht lays out their strategy, a broad strategy for the pentagon for least the past -- next four years. the 2011 budget willçóççç car $6.3 billionç for special operationsw3çççó command, wase summer because a 6% those from its fiscal year. çthatçço[ funds will buy newd communication systems to improve existing ones. about half an hour or so more of your calls on the focus on the budget this year. the spending freeze, will it help or hurt the economy?
we will take your calls. north carolina, bill, democrat collar. caller: china must be giving us stupid medication in the food the ascending here. we are spending $300 billion a year and two wars on people don't even like us who don't even have nothing in common, trying to rebuild these people's nations and roads and stuff and when it comes to $100 billion a year for health care we cannot do that and we are arguing about it. the first thing we should do is get out of these wars. it is not doing no good. and one more thing i need to say. i think that is why the people were very disappointed with obama, is that we could not get out of those, but we understand the military industrial complex is very, very powerful and something needs to be done about
it. the american people really needs to come together. and i have a suggestion, if you let me say one thing, sir. host: go ahead. of a cut -- caller: let me explain this and i would like you to critique -- host: just keep it brief, bill. a lot of people want to wait and. give us the 32nd version. caller: i think the american people need to come together. there is such a thing called early voting. we know who all the voters all -- all the voters are. it we rode everyone and s been to vote of congress out you will get 80% saying " yes. once they sign the contract all we have to do is make sure whether a% before the tournament. once we get a% we know what the elections. as long as we have the people of their better up there, sold out to special interests, to aipac,
different nations. it takes too long to get them out the way the system is set up now because you could only vote like every other year and it will take forever and then you've got the media. host: @ thank you, bill, thank you for checking in. keeping this segment focus on the budget. here is what "roll call" talking about. they quote congressman conyers in here. t j e in dallas, good morning, on our independent line. caller:çç thank you for " washington journal."
çthis has become soçt(ç part regarding theuejtyqnbç atççt starting somethingç becauseç ç we heard almostçq nothingt( abt he raised the debt ceilingç twicexd. t(çi do remember when dick chey mentioned the deficit was no bik the producers at c-spanç çg#çñçofi]ok rec'doççuju negat been listeningç to c-span fork years and youçóçóxd used to havn informative people on and now you have just becomeç a red met situation where people can call of the congressokçççui] peop,
everything is just so horrible and i just wonderçt(çw3 if yog t(cwepeople whatw3çskind of --] çyour finger over again. nçyour finger over again. spewing a lot of negativism and hates about the budget and everything else and of coursew3- xdokif he offered everybodyç a million dollars, b"body would say. a pretty major story with the release of the budget andçxdçe generally cover it every year, and this morning trying to give it a look from all sides. thank you for calling this morning.
budget. qç ççççççqça jz3 newç mexico, andvçw3ççokçó, good morning to build. çç;omzçi]yoççi]çi]8(ñhéçc i think the defenseç[ç budgets to be cut. w3 ççmviyç÷dçqç butt(od [ñççw3qproducers, weapons pr çand that is thew3 biggest corporations there is in the world,ç pushing guns. i]ñrso, iu!i] think defense neee cut. also on your next segment --
independent said on defense. q%ç" scope " the washington p" b bu get plansé]ñóok sun setsççç ony>zg3 nasa md decommissioned. uzi]ç[6w3 o bemoan, built on george w. bush was a mission of an ambitious new chapter in space exploration is about to vanishç withu!fáçy a winter. with the release monday of president obama's budget request nasa will finally get the new administration marching orders and will not be anything in there about flying to the moonñvçó73ç. the budget numbers will show that the administration effectively plans to kill a constellation program that called for a return to the moon by 2020. t(michigan, georgia on our republican line. good morning. caller: this has been the biggest spendingçç spree in american history. oka $787 billion stimulus, $30 billion expansion of job health
care program, $410 billion spending bill that increase non discretionary spending 10% in the last half of 2009, and height non-defense discretionary spending another 12% in fiscal year 2010. so, to freeze that now after hiking a 10% and 12% means nothing. consider this -- george bush in his eight yearsq brought the national debt from $3 trillion up to $6.30 trillion, obama is putting as much on the debt in 20 months asdum!"tç in eight years and he is going to double in five years and tripled in 10 years. look at thexdç piven strategy d ask yourself why obama want releases these is our college ridings. he is trying to create a fiscal crisis in thisç country and its a piece scary situation --
clowardç piven, look up. caller: good morning. s mccall's already talked about, -- as some of the calls already talked about, he increase the budget of the past year that he had to do and he is finding hard ways to stop the spending at this point. çhe put a freeze on that. unfortunately heçç had to rait last year. at this point, he has kind of got his hands tied with the war. he probably wants to get out of there unless he found the intelligence that told him he should not getko out of there. his plan was to leave. so his hands are tied on that. if we had an issue back home domestically, there would be a big problem with that. he would have a problem getting
reelected. the one thing george bush was able to do. so therefore we can't find ways to get new taxes to bring revenue into the government and we can't seem to stop spending ñpçso we are having a ribeau wih it. to buy. + and looking at the white house released on the budget for this year, the warçó spendingçó is ad the budget, close to $160 billionç for more spending in u!ççfiscal year 2011. çnext up, chicago, march on our democrats line. çñdoíoçcaller: good morning. i think the freeze will hurt because usually they freeze things that go to the people. but i want to give an example of two things where politicians on all sides, and i hope mayor daley -- i am calling from
chicago -- making the people the press. one thing is last week they put the stimulunçqçw3çxdçñk abod rail, how it will help chicago, la la la. meanwhile we did theçok ctaç, desperately. host: the cta is your local transit authority? caller: yes, let the subway in new york. what they just had all kinds of layoffs and service delays. cutting and cutting. yet they announce a stimulus plan for high-speed rail. what we need, the un and put people in chicago, and to make the city run, that money to start first for the regular people. that is what the of going to start freezing. the second franken on this thing with haiti, you need to pay attention -- the second thing, this thing with haiti you need to pay attention of health care, they cannot come from money. florida and georgia refused kidney dialysis on medicaid
i remember when bush was president every single day you had a number of the people who were killed in afghanistan and iraq and what happened to that? we need to not have a double standard but give equal time to good and bad things. host: the independent line, california, mike. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i'm against the spending, the freeze. i tell you why. we are spending entirely too much money on the wars. we are creating enemies. we are creating terrorists. when we go about fighting terrorism -- dropped food and the people. why not bombs? that is just going to create hates. i live in sacramento, a state worker. i received three furlough days and 50% pay cut. i am losing my home and about to get laid off and we are spending $1 trillion on killing people in afghanistan who live
in a dirt mound. it is time america wakes up and stop listening to this mainstream media because it is destroying our families and our country and we are spending all this money on killing people. host: elizabeth city, north carolina, nicole on our democrats line. caller: our problem is a simple problem. this is the result of the iraq war and afghanistan war. all you've got to do is just stop the war and get rid of one airplane and one of ship and that would be enough for us to make it. what do you think? host: get rid of the entire programs? f-35? explain yourself. caller: 1 warship, we got them in the making, eliminate the making of one warship, eliminate the making of one airplane. how much would that saved? host: let me show you -- i will
let you go, thanks for your comment. a little bit from "defense news." what will get an increase is the predators. the big winner. a pick -- picture of one of the predator drones. it doubled the planned purchase of the mq-9 rapped their uav's. macon, georgia, pete, republican collar. caller: thank you for c-span. i am really not of the opinion that the spending freeze will do anything for the economy because in the first year that obama was in, he jacked up spending for all of that. and he is not even cutting into that. my concern -- and i don't know if you have peter morici on again or something like that, is to ask if deficit spending was bad under bush, how can it be good under obama of?
and when was the last time that a country managed to tax and spend itself into prosperity? i'm pretty sure it never happened. thank you. host: thank you for the call. a tweet right here -- our handle is c-spanwj if you want to send your thoughts. the president's day to day -- he is expected to talk about the budget this morning and later today hold a news conference on youtube appeared to field questions by youtube users. the headline in "the new york times" this morning.
we will have it to you live, of the scheduled for 1:45 p.m. eastern and you can follow it on our website, c-span.org. norman on our independent line. what about the budget? caller: i think this spending is out of control right now. he has to do something. but i have a few suggestions. i think if we scale back on some of the war on drug funding, i think we can definitely get money back off of that. maybe if we scaled-back on some of the support for israel, we may be able to get some money from israel. that's my comment. thank you. host: back to "the wall street journal."
back and see what the situation is at least in some kind of way. i also wanted to know that people are missing something about the fact that the bush administration knew that we were going into a recession about a year in advance of it becoming this -- this close to the public. it makes a distinctñi difference the way people look at obama claiming he is the 10 is responsible for all of this expenditure. i hope obama does well and i wish him luck and i think we can solve a lot of situations among us -- winning a lottery that gives us $10,000 apiece instead of somebody making $100 million. distribute the wealth. if someone needs to -- host: joliet, wyoming, mike, republican collar. caller: -- thakyou for taking
my call. it will help. it is not a lot. i would like to see him to across the board to% 03% cut in the budget. president obama's budget this year is $200 billion higher than last year and last year was $3.60 trillion. bush's last budget was $3.10 trillion. every year it just keeps going up. of the field -- the freeze will help some, and the point a lot of callers are your coming in, cut a warship or a plane here and there appeared to people dodd understand what the numbers are with our budget. if when you look at $3.80 trillion, if you take the forbes list of but the 300 richest billionaires' and you make everybody panelists, you take warren buffett and bill gates and donald trump and everybody and make them penniless on the street, not only comes up to
about $1.30 trillion. just to give you numbers about how big our budget is, you can take all of the rich cast in the world -- host: 1.3 trillion or billion? caller: their entire work, bill gates, warren buffett, the whole bunch, to where you get to be millionaires -- their lists usually, if you make over a billion dollars you are on the list of 400, their total wealth varies from year to year, right now i think it is down to $1.30 trillion if you made them penniless and put them on the street that would pay about a third of our budget for a year -- and what are you going to do next year because of those folks are going to be penniless? host: a look at the story from "the guardian." u.s. raises stakes in iran is sending ships and missiles. tensions between the u.s. and
iran-dramatically but the disclosure in disclosure barack obama is deploying a missile shield to protect allies in the gulf from attack by tehran. the u.s. is dispatching patriot defensive missiles to four countries -- catarrh, a united arab emirates, bahrain and kuwait, keeping ships in the gulf capable of shooting down iranian missiles. washington is also helping saudi arabia to develop a force to protect its oil installations. american officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by iran at and reassuring gulf states a fearful iran might react to sanctions by striking at u.s. allies in the region. washington is also seeking to discourage israel from a strike against iran by demonstrating that the u.s. is prepared to contain any threat. couple more calls on the budget. lincoln, nebraska, sean on our independence line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to see republicans
calling up $1.30 trillion -- and the current administration come up with an idea that if we have the deficit right now, it could be paid for by the end of this administration and the next administration should do the same. host: this morning in "the washington post" they write about judd gregg and can conrad, a proposal of the commission. the column is about mitch mcconnell, republican leader in the senate. he quotes the republican leader --
he writes about the proposed commission that came up for a vote in the debate over the debt ceiling last week in the u.s. senate. fred hiatt writing, possible solution proposed by senator kent conrad and judd gregg, chairman and ranking republican on the senate budget committee, respectively. the views of fred hiatt in the
"the washington post." tennessee, stand on our democrats lined pad caller: you usually cut me off right away. bush started out with $360 billion surplus. i wish obama had that to start out with. instead of the terrible situation he was left with. two wars that basically were crazy. $12 billion off of a truck in iraq. they did not pay for either. they took it off the budget. and scorn hatch -- they did not pay for no child left behind -- ask orrin hatch why you are talking about obama keeping spending in line. he says, why didn't you do that when you were in power and he says, it was standard practice in power not to pay for anything but now he wants to pay for everything.
$700 billion deficit under paulson and bush under this recession. this is crazy. host: stan, thank you for your views. thank you for all of the calls in the segment and more coming up. we turn our attention to the role of independent voters in 2010 politics. we will hear from alex isenstadt from politico, and also john kornacki, political science professor at george washington university, and your calls, too. all of that coming up.
>> for the first time in its history, the fcc has an in- house dollar and residents to offer a philosophical perspectives to policy issues. stored benjamin on first amendment issues and the use of the digital spectrum to provide for broadband expansion, on "of the communicators" on c-span2. in depth welcomes british historian and former adviser to margaret thatcher, paul johnson, author of over 40 books, his latest on winston churchill. join our three-hour conversation with phone calls for "paul -- paul johnson, live from london, sunday at noon eastern on c- span2.
watch c-span's "washington journal" for conversation, common, and your calls on public affairs, live daily from 7:00 until 10:00 a.m. eastern. c-span, covering washington like no other. the administration releases its $3.80 trillion budget for fiscal year 2011 today and we will have briefings to about the day. the president is expected to speak to the -- about the budget this warning and we will hear from budget director peter orszag at 11:00 a.m. eastern -- 11:30 a.m. eastern. the defense department budget expected to include $160 billion of more funding for the coming fiscal year. defense secretary gates joined by chairman of the joint chiefs admiral mike mullen for a briefing from the pentagon live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. and we will look at the state department budget with deputy secretary of state for management and resources. that briefing live on c-span 3. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: alex isenstadt is congressional reporter for politico and john kornacki is professor of political management and george washington university, joining us this segment to talk about the role of independent voters. i wanted to start the conversation showing some of the swing in independent voters and where they are. here are the numbers -- gallup numbers, latest gallup numbers on the percentage of independence. republicans, independents, democrats appeared 36% independence. in particular, which way they are leaning. 2010, just as of last week. a 43% leaning republican, 40% leaning democrat. take you back to the middle of the bush administration in 2004 or toward the end of the first turn, this is 2004, january, leading republican, 48%,
leading -- leaning democrat, 46%. the recent election in virginia, new jersey, two republican governors when and then scott brown and massachusetts. it would seem to think more independents are leaning republican. is that not the case? guest: i think the confusing thing about the poll is it is global, about the entire united states. i think if you when i state it would be a little different and it would have been a lot different in massachusetts. alex was of there before. but in virginia, clearly a larger group of republican leaning independence moved very dramatically toward governor robert mcdonald -- bob mcdonnell in the same in massachusetts. host: did the independents come out of the woodwork in massachusetts? guest: 51% of the voters count themselves as independent, not democrat or republican. i think in a lot of cases, particularly massachusetts,
voters were economically hard- hit and economically hard-hit suburbs, some north of boston and some plymouth counting. those voters really decided, look, we had enough and we will take out our anchor and take out our anger at the ballot box. i think to a certain extent scott brown, the republican, spoke to that. host: linda feldman writing and "christian science monitor" spoke about the role of independent going forward. she quotes darrell west of brookings -- would you agree with that? guest: completely. one of the things that animates independence most clearly is their economic prospects. and this is happening across the board. it used to be just older workers, middle age and beyond, that seemed to be looking at their prospects rather
negatively. i think polls are showing young people actually feel the same way. by the way, looking at independence in general is tough because independents are a very big first group of people. there are some independence, gallup shows that lean democrats. you can say the eighth soft democrats. sometimes they go there and sometimes in between. a lot of them went for obama in 2008. there is a group that lean republican. these people are very animated. they make up the tea party movement. the makeup and but -- a lot of libertarians. this group in particular has been coming out and with droves i think that help determine the last set of elections. host: they make up the tea party is another groups but they have no reputation really on capitol hill. guest: if you look at the poll numbers, you saw the trickling off of people who identified themselves as republicans of the past 10 or so years. they drifted off into the independent movement. they are hardly to become democrats. there may sit on the hands occasionally.
they're coming back, not as republicans but very strong economic conservatives. this is the heart and soul, i think, of the tea party movement in this group has been particularly important in the last several elections. host: the have possible making of a candidate, being a republican, the most prominent group in the republican party, tea party movement, or a democrat to answer more directly or perhaps be more prone to answer to independent voices rather than their own party? guest: here is what i would say. democrats want to position themselves now so they can answer to some of those angry -- independent voters who are out there right now. i think the best indication we saw of that was the state of the union address last week. i mean, look at what president obama did. he talked about the economy, jobs, jobs, jobs. that is what he focused on. he did not get to health care
until much later on in the speech and that is because democrats and president obama realize they wanted to appeal to some of the voters very concerned about the economy right now. host: why hasn't the president been able to harness more of the independent report that voted him -- support that voted into office? guest: you talk to democratic pollsters and they say over the last year the party aired to a certain degree focusing so much on health care as opposed to jobs in the economy. and failed to connect healthcare and the debate over health care, they failed to connect that to the issue of job losses, which have been hitting state so hard right now. host: we have been talking about the proposed domestic spending freeze. will that resonate with independent voters? guest: the words, but actions have yet to be determined. if you listen to what the president says, the spending freeze is not take place until next year, which means there is all kinds of spending that takes
place this year and the headline, as you pointed out in the earlier segment, $1.20 trillion is a lot of money and people are very much concerned about it. i want to go back to something you said before, and that is, what happened between the election and now. one of the things that happened is the president ran on a platform of a new politics, he called it, a new way of getting people to work together to get things achieved. but in the past year it has been the old politics that of driven things. majority driven health-care bill largely written by one party and one party only. the president may have changed his mind on that -- he met with some republicans this weekend -- but at least the past record shows what he ran on is not what the government. host: we will look a president's comments in just a bit but let us listen to viewers. the numbers on your screen. here is bob, an independent from miami. go ahead. john kornacki and alex isenstadt.
caller: good morning, gentlemen. i wanted to ask the question -- in the past political history, whenever an independent movement has emerged, hasn't the incumbent president to benefit from that movement by having the opposition votes shoved off through the independencts? nixon, 1968, george wallace took away democratic votes from humphrey and richard nixon was reelected. i think that could be a repeat performance. guest: it ever good point. the answer is, independent voters affect the election. but overall conclusion is somewhat mixed. you are right about 1968, but remember 1972. ross perot was in that election and the incumbent president was george w. bush -- a lot believe
that that tilt the back to george clinton -- bill clinton. host: the role of ross perot. guest: we have not seen a ross perot figure emerge into many different cycles -- to many races where independent voters can't throw their boats off to an independent candidate. but you look at massachusetts governor race, state treasurer, cahill, he could divide the republican vote and give the election to democrat patrick. which is somewhat interesting given that democrats right now are those that perceived to have problems with independents. the problem democrats are facing right now is a lot of these independent voters, while the man of the happy with the republican party they are willing to take up that anger, and right now they may be willing to take their anger out on democrats. host: birmingham, alabama, gwenn on the independent line.
guest: this young man sort of answered the question i was going to ask about, independent s were really leaning toward the republican, leaving the democrats because of their disillusioned with democrats at the present time. you sort of answer that for me. but another point i wanted to make also jiging the independents, be careful how you are moving away from the democrats because the republicans, they were in office for eight years and a lot of things didn't get done and also what is going to happen if they do have the majority in the senate and house, will they work with the president? if they do have control of the congress and the senate, what would they do then? would they work with the president? and will all be disillusioned again with the republicans? thank you.
host: who wants to have at it? guest: i think the caller brings up a key point. polls show independence are not happy with either party. the question, that maybe enough for the republicans in this case because just -- if voters are so angry and willing to take anger out on the party in power, that probably benefits republicans. i think what we are starting to see is president obama and the democratic party moved very aggressively in the last week or so, even beyond that, to sort of portray republicans as an opposition party. you are either going to work with me or not constructively. we saw the president did that in baltimore last week. i think that is an early attempt to show voters as we head into the 2010 election year, you may not like what is going on in washington, i am trying, and if i am not getting much done it is that republicans and not willing to work with him.
host: he did about getting things done and washington and working with both parties. here is the president from last wednesday. >> what frustrates the american people is in washington, every day is election day. we can to wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about if the other side. a belief that if you lose, i wind. -- i win. neither party should delay or obstruct of a single bill just because they can. [applause] i am speaking to both parties. the confirmation of well qualified public servants should not be held hostage to pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. i will not give up trying to change the tone of our politics.
i know it is an election year. and eyes for last week it is clear campaign fever has come even earlier than usual, but we still need the government. host: john kornacki, he is speaking to congress but it sounds like he is speaking directly to the american people. guest: of the independent voter, in particular. by the way, that same tone is what scott brown ran on. he wanted to be -- what did he call himself? a scott brown republican. and many of the people who voted for him, as i understand it, wanted to see things change in washington's of things do get done. it is not an automatic no vote, it is about changing the tone. the problem the president has is even though he talks about that, for the democrats to get things done in congress, the bills they want, the way they are presently written, requires a very partisan approach so there is a disconnect. .
to understand working, americans in this country. a wonder if they have heard about this, since 1994 until just last year, $44 trillion was taken out of the economy. cash money gone. who is to repay that? the top people in the country to not much to pay higher wages. they have declined. somebody has to pay. where did that $43 trillion go? host: thank you.
alex isenstadt? guest: the caller identified a problem in washington. one person i wrote to several weeks ago, a colleague of mine said, to a certain extent, this is a problem we brought upon ourselves. all we talked about on capitol hill was spend, spend. when you look at voters, they say there is too much spending in washington. democrats talk too much about the health care, stimulus. these are all expensive programs and they did not spend as much time talking about jobs. right now, there could be some backlash to that.
host: next phone call. columbus, ohio. caller: the republicans took the wars of the budget. the democrats are trying to be honest and put it into the budget. i want to hear what they say have to -- what they say about that. guest: if you listen to what the president said talking about freezing spending, next year, the only thing that this has anything to do with it is the discretionary spending, about 16%. the other part of the budget, which is much more difficult to get that, the defense spending
but we are fighting two wars and we have need for homeland security. on the other side, debt keeps getting higher. trying to go after entitlements with medicaid and medicare is hard to do politically. host: we're in the country -- where in the country are independents prominent? guest: as i understand it, there is a lot of momentum coming from the independent side, coming from the tea party, libertarian side of things. i think what you see in florida,
use could see in other states. host: bill in boston. democrat line. caller: i am confused about what happened in massachusetts. i worked in the obama and coakley campaign. she would have been a wonderful senator but she decided not to stand at fenway park in the cold, all these political, vot e-gathering things. i do not think this was a reaction to the policies of the obama administration, or her administration. i simply believe she did not
campaign where she should have, did not show the enthusiasm. i campaigned for her. i tried my best. for example, our phone banks were not open when they were supposed to be. it was poorly organized. it was not a reaction to the obama policy, and i am sure it was not a reaction to her policy, but rather the way that she ran the campaign. guest: clearly, there is disagreement over whether or not she ran an effective campaign. i remember she was holding a fundraiser here in washington on capitol hill. that became fodder for scott brown. she had a lot of verbal miscues,
and there were a lot of problems. that said, when you look across the state, 51% of the electorate in massachusetts are independent. if you look at what they said in exit polls, they said we are worried about the economy. i think that was reflected in the results. host: the economy is a key issue, but yesterday scott brown talked about his views on abortion. >> you are pro-choice. gay marriage is legal in massachusetts, but the republican party, apart from language, calls for the repeal of roe v. wade and do not agree with same-sex marriage. do you think the party has to
change the platform? >> we have always been an inclusive party. we need more people to contribute to the conversation. the difference between me and others is i am against partial birth abortions, federal funding of abortions. i think we should do more for adoptions. >> but you are still pro-choice? >> yes, this is an issue that is best decided between a woman and her doctor. i believe an individual has the right to decide their own destiny. host: and john kornacki, is he's dealinhe still appealing to the independents? guest: absolutely.
if you have the choice between a pro-choice candidate and a semi-pro-choice person, your course is clear. they may not like either of them, but he is the better option. if you are going to appeal to the independence-minded voters, and still get conservatives, that mind set works. host: next phone call. caller: one year ago, i called and spoke to john fund, talking about the republican party after the election. at that time, i was republican but i left the party to become independent because the republican party no longer had conservative values.
basically, obama has too many marxists who useviews. host: who did you vote for before you became independent? guest: mr. fund, when we were talking, i said the democrats and republicans do not represent the wishes of the people. they actually govern against the will of the people. if you see what happened in massachusetts, the independents were the plurally, not majority. i believe this is what is
happening in many states. however, we do not really have a candidate, per say, but they are going to try to control the election as much as they can. host: alex isenstadt, is the independent party benefiting from the flight from the republican party? and generallyguest: as the call, we do not have the emergence of a strong independent candidate. malkiaside from the special elen in new york, the independent candidate almost ended up
winning. in that case, you had a lot of conservatives and independents voting for the conservative party candidate. host: your colleague writes about how the t party -- tea party people are lashing out. guest: i think this highlights the lives that quality of the tea party movement. this is not a tight, centralized structure of a movement. it is sort of a loosely-found the movement as -- movement where people are trying to do
things as they go. hostguest: i remember back in 1, republicans were able to resonate with a lot of voters, a conservative, free-marketers. many of them had not been to the polls before and they needed something to talk about. the tea party is like that. they do not like large government solutions as answers to the problem of the country. that is not good news for parents because they like to use the government to alleviate problems this group of people does not see that as an answer.
they are not automatically in lockstep with republicans either. however, they are economic conservatives. whoever can tap into that will have a lot of leverage in the upcoming elections. host: newcastle, pennsylvania. democratic collacaller. caller: if you look at the facts, a lot of that is rhetoric. democrats have not always been the ones to spend. people may believe the rhetoric, but it has not really been the case. i would like you to check yourself. guest: the tea party movements are not automatically republicans for the reasons you said.
the past administration spend almost as freely as the past democratic ones. in a sense, i agree with you. host: the president spoke about jobs in baltimore, going to new england this week. is he trying to tap into some of these folks, these scott brown supporters? guest: no question. the state of the union was all about jobs. democrats will tell you that that is the top of their agenda. in baltimore, he talked about the economy and jobs. democrats are pivoting from health care to focus on jobs. host: from what you know of the independents, what do you hear about health care, what needs to be done? guest: i do not think it is off
the table. certainly, the giant, humongous bill before congress is another example why it seems that democrats are hoping to see a big solution to the problem. if they believe creating jobs and cutting health care through an insurance plan can work, we will see. the problem is, i do not know how you can get a jobs bill passed, health care, and all before the midterm elections. host: moderate congress people, how best to they reflect the views of the american people? guest: senator lieberman is sort of a right of center individual.
i do not think you see any representation of this tea party movement in washington. jim demint, mike pence, tom proce -ice -- those are some pee that conservative-minded republicans like. host: next phone call. caller: the question was independents are moving to the right. they should thank mr. obama for that. one question i have regarding the budget is, what would happen
tomorrow morning if we all went to the mailbox and we got the bill due from the government? we have to be careful. we cannot just keep on spending big even though the republicans have not been good about it, and they do show some more conservatism when it comes to the budget. guest: i think that the gentleman is right on. people look at the mountain of debt that is being piled up, everything that is coming from washington, and it seems to be more spending. that needs to stop. right now, spending is being led by democrats and the president.
host: but you also mention it -- mention that the people also want some spending to create jobs. guest: the question is how you create jobs. people on the right will say that you do not do that by creating more government spending. you do that by giving more money to the people, tax cuts. even with that, how do you create jobs in the short term? host: what did you think of the president's small business tax? guest: their rhetoric, idea, and, -- cooperation is fine, but his time scale is two, three years from now, when he is up for reelection. the problem is, the house is up for re-election within the year. the ability for that route to do
much is problematic. host: looking at 2012, will the president abandone their efforts to get people reelected? guest: i do not think so. i am sure he does not want to see large scale democratic losses. the economy looks to be improving, and that is what everyone wants. we will see what happens. host: 10 more minutes with our guests. laguna west, california. mike on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am a libertarian. it surprises me that the only time politicians have any
credibility is when they are critiquing the other side. republicans are no longer republican. democrats are no maugrlonger democratic. we have our military in 130 different countries. democrats have corrupted the election process to such an extent with gerrymandering that 97% of incumbents have won re- election. it seems to me this is a sham democracy. so they have earned the at the -- epithet of the democratic party. guest: you represent a lot of
the feelings that people hunt. use a something interesting, and that is why is it so political, so partisan? one reason is because of the way we do redistricting in the country. it is done by the state's in a pretty unfair manner. aside from states like iowa, the redistricting is done on a pretty partisan basis. you can get in very homogeneous seats so that members can all go together. that is frustrating. i do not know what you can do other than to staay stop.
host: that was one of the first people say, i am a member of the libertarian party. how important is it to have that sort of identification? guest: in the past, third parties have had an effect on the elections. in this case, let us refer to them as a libertarian group, and i am going to put the t party people together with them. they can be a significant force in the next election. they may affect who gets to choose in in 2012. they are a growing movement. if they stay close to republicans, they can help them, but they do not necessarily have to. i would say it is a growing movement, something to keep an
eye on, and it may have an effect on the elections this year and in 2012. host: next phone call. caller: it is like the independents stopped thinking. the problem is, the democratic party never made the case that the government can do good things for you. the reason they do not is because they have been collected with big government. when you work with corporations and you say the government can do good things, no, you are the enemy.
this is like interracial marriage. this type of mentality is taking over. guest: the caller highlighted some tensomething -- democrats, especially now, are not seen in the best light right now. many thought that we would see widespread change. i think, to a certain extent, these are the frustrations that we see reflected across the country. host: they made the point that democrats have not convinced folks that the government can do good things. will that be part of their strategy, what can help them get
reelected? guest: this is what the president promised in the state of the union. many of his supporters wanted to see something more. the frustrating thing -- talking about health care -- there was a bailout of wall street, stimulus package, a confusing health care bill. so the delivery was not there. i am not saying that of republican or independents would have loved it, but the people that were for obama wanted to see some results. the question now is if they can get some results to inject some energy. host: we have an e-mail --
on the hill, the deck is stacked against independents. guest: this country, since the beginning, has been dominated by a two-party process. through of our history, we have been able to subsume all of the other interests under one or the other umbrella. that has been a strength of the country. that has allowed continuity. think about all the multi-party state we have in the world. we do not have that lack of cohesion, but there is a lot of this interest within the party. democrats are frustrated. they do not see the leadership representing their values.
maybe this is the coming of a third party. maybe the expansion of government is enough to do that. i do not know. certainly, history shows you that opportunity presents these types of cancers. host: next phone call. caller: imf small-business man. i think what is going on -- they are missing the point. -- i am a small businessman. they talked about nuclear energy, drilling on shores, and all of that is good, but is there anything in the budget that addresses nuclear, natural gas, offshore drilling?
i have been in business for 36 years. i am hurting because i do not need more debt. i need more consumers coming into my retail outlets spending more money. i am in the service-patient business. it costs people significant money to keep their cars on the road, gasoline prices change. probably one of the most volatile businesses in the country. i have the employees from all over the world. everyone is hurting right now. we cannot need more money stirring up credit. that may be good for bigger businesses, but the small businessman, which generates 75% of the jobs out there, i need to
hire more people. until people start spending more -- $8 in tax reductions? they said to me, this is crazy. host: some final thoughts from ellis isenstadt -- alex isenstadt. guest: for democrats, the question is how you can show that you are taking steps to improve the economy. that is the key for democrats. as you point out, there are all these complex issues that you have to address. you have this small business person, other people hurting
economically. how do you show them that you are addressing their concerns? that is the challenge for democrats. host: when did you hear in the phone call, john kornacki? guest: frustration. people want to know if things are going to get better or worse. right now people do not see things getting better. i do not think they embrace either party particularly, but what is clear is what is being offered to people is not sufficient. rhetoric alone is insufficient. they need results. i see in very strong anti- incumbent move coming across the board. host: thank you for joining us this morning.
digital spectrum. >> "in depth" welcomes paul johnson, former adviser to margaret thatcher. and join our three-hour conversation with paula johnson sunday, noon eastern. watch "washington journal" daily from 7:00 to 10:00 eastern. covering washington like no other. >> the white house releases its budget proposal for the fiscal year 2011. this morning, president obama talks about the $3.90 trillion budget for next year. we will take that starting at
10:45 eastern. also this morning, peter orszag discusses the budget proposal. live coverage beginning at 11:30. robert gates joined admiral mike mullen and other defense officials to look at the projected $700 billion budget for the defense department. and the state department will offer their numbers for next year. jacob liu will speak with reporters. host: steve mufson is a financial reporter for the "washington post" and is here to talk about china and the global economy. since it has been a reflective time in the president, what has
changed in the relationship between the u.s. and china, specifically on the economy? how different is it between president obama and president bush? guest: i think the economic crisis has made it clear that china is important to the world economy. stimulus has helped the global economy from becoming worse. and that is one difference. there is even greater appreciation for that then there was before. i think, in terms of what has happened in the obama's first year, we started trying to engage china, toning down the human rights issues, and now a lot of things are coming together to poison the waters on those issues, which are not about the economy at all. host: your colleague wrote an
analysis of u.s.-china relations, really, china relations with the world. there was a quotation in their that -- host: what are your thoughts on that? guest: i think ken makes some important points. china has become, arguably, one of the two most important powers of the world. however, it is not yet a decision that they are
comfortable playing. you saw that in the climate change talks. you also see that in the economics sphere. tensions over how much to pressure iran, whether or not china can play that role comfortably is something important going forward. so far, it is not going that well. host: steven mufson taking your phone calls about china and the world economy. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. pittsburg, democrats line.
caller: i brought a product to hollywood, it was embraced, and i began to manufacture until the massive downturn. i was decimated. ñrwhen the g-20 summit came to pittsburgh, i began to speak with some of the delegates from china who are not being even metaphorical about their country's enormous spending. i asked them, what would happen if the dollar would collapse? what would leadership in china do? they said two options that would be provided to america. the first option would be america must pay the debt using gold, or the chinese government would essentially take all the factories and hold them in payment.
if the u.s. does not change, we will be finished as a nation. we are on the verge of becoming a third world country. if we do not change, we will be finished. host: comments on china and debt? guest: of course, china plays an important role in financing the world deficit. that is important to us when we are trying to jump-start the economy through deficit spending. whether or not china would do something to undermine our ability to finance those deficits is something people speculate about. given that they hold so much debt, it is unlikely that they would do something that would
undermine their own interests. you see them trying to diversify their investment, but i do not see them amended in -- abandoning them. what you will see is them trying to diversify their investments, and like any other international country, the investing in other parts of our economy, as we have in their economy. host: the chief executive of google spoke over the weekend, taking aim at their center ship. how important is it to the chinese that google stays in business there? guest: very important. there are billions of people using their chinese website.
google made a deal to get a chinese-based search engine and the idea is they would self- censor things. china is trying to be more open to the chinese economy. -- to the world economy. most people have woken up to the fact that china is centering, and i think this is important. it will be interesting to see how this results itself. it is hard to see a middle ground on this censorship issue. host: rather than only being a problem between a company in the country, they were able to have
the lead content -- hillary clinton comment on it more broadly. how was that received? guest: not well. it is seen as interfering with their affairs, elevating a commercial dispute into the international foreign policy issue, a bilateral relations issue. the official reaction was pretty negative, but it probably could have been worse. they did leave the option open to working things out. host: myrtle beach. andrew on the republican line. caller: i think it is important to get an accurate view of china in the global economy.
this may sound like conspiracy theory, but it is not. it is a benevolent plan to bring about the third world countries and advance them. we have to leave what is left of our industrial age and that they can have one. and if anyone wonders why we see so many -- goldman sachs, members of the administration continue to impact the next administration -- that is because there needs to be stability. nobody likes surprises. guest: i think it is true the
economy in china is growing very fast. that creates a lot of potential issues that we are still getting used to. for half a century, the economy was a non-factor in china. that was because of bad economic management. it is now coming into its own and we have to be used to the idea of 1.3 billion people being a bigger factor in the world economy. but whether or not that is a zero sum game it is connected to the way you ask the question. of course, that is not necessarily true because economies can grow together. however, there may be more competition in certain areas. you've heard the president talking about the desire not to
be no. 2 in anything. so there is an element of competition. host: he talked about alternative energy. "the new york times" talked about the race to lead a clean power. they write -- as china grows, their workers will demand more. how will that affect china's positioned, not only in alternative energy, but in other areas, as workers demand more? guest: they will have an
advantage because they will not be near an american wages. whether or not they can lead the world in a clean energy, a couple of words of caution. technologically, they are not there yet. a lot of people are writing about china in this context in order to bring about policy changes here in the u.s. they want the u.s. to create policies that will favor these industries. i am a little bit leery of some of these reports that say china is jumping so far ahead. china is still looking for u.s. companies to invest in because they are making better products. they are producing more wind turbines, solar panels than before. most of that is for the domestic
chinese market. in terms of exports, there are much more important places. ñihost: you said they are not there yet inbrms of technology -- guest: they are not leading the world. they do make a reasonably decent wind turbines and solar panels that are inexpensive and preferred for certain uses. host: what about other industries? what industries do they lead technologically? guest: that is a good question. in energy, i do not think there is one. they are not bad, but i would not say they are the world leaders. host: are they helped or hurt by engineering bring power that
goes to other countries? guest: there are a lot of smart chinese engineers out there, and more and more of them are staying home as opposed to moving to the united states. host: tech transfer -- you are referring to staying at home more. next is maggie on the republican line. i'm going to put you on hold. you have to put your television on me. next phone call. caller: i understand what you say about cutting off america from credit.
but let's be honest. we have too much credit. look at china, they expanded it in africa, which nobody seems to be talking about. they expand in top america. they are like virgin markets. if it is not if they blow up, it is when. i do not see us putting it in those terms. the bottom line is this. if you owe somebody money and you keep on asking, let me get more, and i will just give you a little bit back. sooner or later, they are going to stop lending.
even if the market's fall, if they have a footbalhold in all these markets, they can say, the u.s. is nice, but i can go to other places. guest: i think, underlining a lot of these comments is concerned about our own weaknesses. i covered some of these issues in the bush and clinton administrations. there is a third world aspect to this, which news, allow of developing countries have barred tremendously and have found themselves so far in debt that they could not function. the u.s. is different because we have a huge and vibrant economy.
we can afford this to do -- before to do this, but inevitably, we have to get our budget on more stable footing. whether or not this is the time to duke it, in the midst of a downturn, -- to do it, in the midst of a downturn, is the question. sooner or later, we need to right the ship in a way that we have not done. guesthost: they mentioned the as sale to taiwan. let me show you the "wall street
journal" and the chinese reaction to the arms sale -- economically, what sort of things can the chinese do for this sale? guest: there might be some specific things they do on specific deals. i do not think there will be a fundamental change in the economic relationship. you may see certain companies that suffer as a result of this. host: kingston, new york. maggie -- just another reminder, you have to turn down your television. michigan. independenct line. caller: i have two questions. i will try to keep it brief.
could you give me a quick history on how china became this gargantuan? to me, it has emulated taiwan, hong kong. it seems, our administrations in the past 12 years, have attacketalked too much about grg democracies. here we have a democracy that pretty much the group itself, and you would think that we would be trumpeting this. shouldn't we be beefing them up more? guest: i think the problem with the united states crowing about the success of the thai want democracy is we are trying -- taiwan democracy is we are trying to avoid upsetting china.
we have always had -- this has always been an awkward subject, and will continue to do so. host: how much time do you spend in china? guest: i was there for four years. i was just there for about seven months. host: what is the biggest change you have seen? guest: well, it is richer. people dress better. more buildings, more cars. traffic is horrendous. people seem perhaps even more confident that china is going to proceed in this path and take its rightful place in the world.
host: our people -- how are people doing, economically, better off? guest: much better. people are twice as well off as they were before. host: does the post still have a bureau there? guest: yes, we do. host: new york city. george. caller: i have a question on something i have not seen reported. i know china has a pretty active space program, and i know they are planning on going to the moon as soon as they can. what do you think of the obama administration cutting the funds for the constellation program,
it seems unlikely to me that the moon will be a source of natural resources. it is just much too far and difficult path to do that. as a practical matter, it is it better to put more money into programs here or into the space program? personally, i would rather put more money here and put our focus on things like the hubble telescope. host: from what you know, technologically, are the chinese capable of the space program to take them to the moon? guest: yes, i think so. we did this in an era where computer technology was so primitive to what it is today, so i am sure the chinese can and will eventually do it. whether or not it is important to what is happening here on
earth is another matter. host: lincoln nebraska -- lincoln, nebraska. doug on the republican line. guest: since world war two, we were the most productive and economically stable in the world. -- since world war ii, we were the most productive and economically-stable in the world. i wonder if you think this is the government possible -- government's fault or capitalism? there is the same amount of money in the world, it just depends on how people used it. guest: clearly, it is both.
financial the institution were deeply flawed in the way that they saw risk. clearly, the american people are somewhat to blame because we did not save enough. the u.s. government is partly to blame because there was not adequate supervision of these institutions. and because the government ran a deficit in good times, as opposed to having the balance the budget -- it is interesting to compare that to china. people say that at an extraordinarily high rate. .
one of the risks with the chinese economy is that it has invested so much in productive capacity that they're just will not be enough market for that, either domestically or worldwide. they might have some time of the stagnation what people catch up to the capacity of the economy there. host: steven mufson is a reporter with the "washington post" and has written for the "wall street journal" and a number of other publications. you are talking about china for the next 15 minutes.
here is new orleans, terrence, independent line. caller: good morning, morse -- maurice strong, once the secretary to the united nations who is no living in china -- now living in china once stated that in order for their one world government to be achieved, the united states must be taken down. they own all of the mainstream media. guest: the "washington post" is a publicly owned company. there are two causes of stock. the controlling portion is still owned by the gramm family. her father, eugene meyer, bought
the newspaper in bankruptcy in the 1930's. host: you write an article about reducing banking lending. what is going on there? why are they klum been down on lending? guest: this is a reminder that chinese -- china is now an economy like ours yet. they set lending targets, not unlike the effect which sets interest rates and they act as they see fit.
the fed sets its own targets, but it is not as mandated as you would a quota. the chinese banks, knowing that the chinese government might change their mind at the end of the year rush out and lend as much money as it possibly can early in the here. we saw this last year were lending would increase 50% in the first half of last year and then the government would pull back and increase the interest rate and it would be only 15% in the last half of the year. with such a and his banks that lent out a huge proportion of the funds they were supposed to lend out all year long, so the government is trying to pull them back. host: democratic caller, go ahead.
caller: i just have a question concerning the sale of military arms in taiwan. a work in the intelligence community and i never heard anyone -- i've worked in the intelligence committee and i never did anyone bring it up, but i believe that shanghaied -- cinching i left the mainland and i believed there was back then drew a animosity between taiwan and mainland. i now believe that the conflict has been manufactured by the chinese government on the mainland and any opposition they have to our sale of things to try one is bogus because they benefit from that by getting the technology and the weapons that they could later use. i know this is not a mainstream
theory, but they used to the chinese generals come traipsing through where our work, looking at all our equipment, giving them a briefing. i would like to get your best opinion on that. guest: well, i think that you are suggesting, really, that some people come here on military exchanges from taiwan and may, in fact, be giving that information to china. i'm sure that is a possibility. i'm sure the biggest among all countries. the united states has not actually sold much military commitment t' tke one for quite a long time. these pieces of equipment that we're éalkinp!out selling right now were,actually administration in 2001.
we have really been dragging our feet on this and most of this that we focused on were supposed to be defensive as opposed to offensive in nature, you know, on the theory that we are not giving enough for taiwan to project its force of another country, just to keep something like china invading tie one from happening. host: is the chinese aren't working more closely with the trent -- with the taiwanese government? guest: yes, the taiwanese leader has been promoting ties with the mainland and ties are closer and closer. i suspect that what will happen over time, or what one would call it what happened over time is that china would change to the extent that they would become more comfortable with
taiwan and taiwan would be more comfortable with them and they could form some commonwealth where they could retain a lot of autonomy. caller: this all seems to be a little bit of financial smoke and mirrors to me. first, our live like to know, $6.4 billion, what percentage of that is the gdp of taiwan? i do not understand where people can say that we are selling them at this stuff. one is the last time that anyone tried to do anything to die one? do they need patriot missiles? we knew israel needed patriot missiles because the iraqis were firing bombs at them. why in the world would they need this type of technology except to say to me, as a voter --
host: you said the u.s. was drug in their feet on this, what prompted -- was dragging their feet, and this, what prompted this? guest: although it seems unlikely of this particular moment that there would be a conflict in the taiwan straits, it was only during my time in the mid-1990s that china fired missiles at taiwan in an effort to discourage taiwanese voters from electing someone who was very much for taiwanese independence. it is not entirely far-fetched that there is a danger of there to try one, and as the caller may recall, that united states sent 16 warships to the area at the time. it was not that long ago that we did have severe tension.
host: was the navy presence in that area of china? guest: we still have a huge fleet like we did before. i think the united states is trying to make it too costly to really undertake offensive military action with taiwan and with the tide want -- with the taiwanese are trying to do is to develop capabilities so that it becomes too expensive for us to come to the aid of chart-of taiwan. it is not china vs. the united states. it is all about the cost of action and the taiwanese straits. host: you spend time in china? and did you speak the language? guest: a little bit, not well. caller: there is no question
that china is a major player in the global economy and will continue to grow for the main reason they have no debt. they have trillions of dollars in cash and we have no assets, no cash. the we are 17 trillion dollars in debt. and the reason we have this debt is because we do not have public finance the election. we of corporations, lobbyists the fund are campaigns. we have to give them our tax treasure, heaters are piling weapons we do not need or whatever. by amending the constitution our deck will continue to grow. but my question to the guest is, how long do you think that china will keep this credit squeeze going on and how will it affect our exports to china?
guest: of course, china is not keeping a credit squeeze on. if anything, china is helping us keep our interest rates lower because it is buying so much u.s. debt. and the national debt is 14 trillion dollars, not $17 trillion, but it is still pretty high. but i do not see them, constrained their lending capability.
hillary's speech about free speech might be the same as the speech that churchill made about the iron curtain. going forward, how big of an issue is cyber security and the chinese going to be? guest: very big issues. i think that the internet is more and more important. we do more and more things on it. more and more chinese people are using it, the number is connecting by -- is connected and growing by 30% or 40% a
year. the cyber attacks are both an effort to harass certain people, but also an effort to acquire certain technical information. that is what was happening in the google case. there that a certain amount of friction over content and there was a certain amount of friction over them try to access certain g. mail accounts. but overall, i think it was access to information over military and i think that is what finally pushed bull to say they've gone too far. caller: i want to make a comment about the united states as far as they would our stores all of the jobs and then in return, we have to import those things back into the country. now we have to borrow the money
that we need from china and now we have this trillion dollar deficit. why did they send over the manufacturing jobs when they knew they were going to send the technological jobs overseas as well? why would people so smart not negate or they said those jobs and that hurt the economy in the long range? guest: i think this is a key issue in the united states needs to reinvigorate its own economy. we cannot keep shipping jobs there forever. yes, there are a lot of foreign companies that are operating in china. china is fond of mentioning that although -- i think it is something like half of its exports are made by divisions of foreign companies, and mostly america in china.
their argument is that the development of their economy is not entirely into the coal to the u.s. corporations. but obviously, we still need to have something for the working people in our economy to do. in terms of china, we want to make sure that they're not keeping their currency at an artificial rate that will benefit them in a way that they would not otherwise. i think that is why you have seen so much attention being paid to that. the idea that -- is that if the exchange rate is correct, the economies will ballots in a more natural way. if not, you will see more and more jobs flowing there in a way that could be harmful to us. host: on china in particular, what issue are you next covering? guest: and still trying to ride up a few economic stories from a trip that i just took.
i will probably try to get two or three things are on that in the next couple of weeks. host: steven mufson, you can read his work at "washington post" thanks for being here. next, we will be joined by the surgeon general of arkansas and also from the center to prevent job obesity, dr. joe thompson will be with us for the remaining 45 minutes of the program. that is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> for the first time in its history, the fcc has an in-house scholar and resident to offer of perspective to policy issues. tonight, stuart benjamin on the use of digital spectrum to provide broadbent expansion. >> in depth what comes british historian and former adviser to margaret thatcher, paul johnson, author of over 40 books. join our three-hour conversation with your phone calls for paul johnson, live from london, sunday at noon eastern on " tv's in-depth on c-span2. >> wash -- watched "washington journal" live daily from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. eastern. the c-span, covering washington
like the water. >> the white house believes is its budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 today. here's a look at some of the live program and giving up on the c-span that works. this morning, president obama will talk about the $3.9 trillion budget for next year starting at 1045 eastern -- 20 -- 10:45 a.m. eastern. this afternoon, defense secretary robert gates joints chief jaret cowger mike moylan and other events occurred -- other defense officials by from the pentagon at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and the state permit will offer their numbers for next year. becher -- secretary -- deputy secretary of state jigaboo and that is underway -- jacob bluhl.
host: dr. jo thompson is the head of the center for drove of obesity in the night -- in the united states. will be taking your calls particularly about child obesity. if there were one personal habits, policy, or public law that you could change that would have the most direct impact on travel and obesity what would it be? guest: this is one of the biggest challenges we are going to face because there is not a single action. over the past 30 years, the environment in which our kids go to school and live and learn and play each day has changed so that the calories they take in are far greater than the calories they burn off. we have seen a tripling in the
obesity rate of our kids. we're about to take policy action at the local and state and federal level. host: some statistics among children aged 2 to 5, the prevalence of obesity increased. also, one of seven low-income children is obese, but the obesity epidemic is stabilizing. should that not be seen as good news? guest: 1 in three kids is either applebees or overweight and one out of every two adults -- is
either obese or overweight and one out of every two adults. we have got to reverse that or the health care costs and the damage to our communities and families is going to be a poor future. some suggest that this could be the first generation of children that cannot live as long as their parents so because of the diabetes and heart disease and hypertension that will be caused. host: the numbers are on your screen. a lot of these statistics over the course of 25 years. what is the biggest reason for this increase in obesity? guest: this morning, 12 million families will wake up and send their kids to preschool and another 35 million will send their kids to school. the school environment, the lack of recess and physical activity, the inability of kids to walk
and bicycle to a school like they used to do. when they come home, parents will let them go to play at the parks and burn off of the food they ate, so they sit. we have too many cows reason and not enough calories out and we see the manifestation in the obesity rates of our kids. host: michelle obama last week announcing initiatives to take on the issue. let me show you what she had to say. >> as we have seen, the obesity rate in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis and is threatening our children. it is threatening our families and, more importantly, it is threatening the future of this nation. higher rates of obesity are directly linked to higher rates of chronic illnesses like heart disease and cancer and diabetes, even though a type ii diabetes
among them people is rare, among -- over three-quarters of those who have it are obese. the consequences of this are so severe that, as the secretary said, medical experts have warned that our children are on track to be less healthy than we are. and there has never been a generation of young people who are in -- who are on track to be less healthy than their parents. host: the atlanta journal constitution reported that she said her crusade against drugs of obesity began on a personal level after repute -- her pediatrician warned her that her two daughters were -- her two daughters' body mass index was getting out of balance. she started cutting back on certain foods. guest: every parent should know
there body mass index so they can help attract children that are becoming at risk. we have instituted that in our schools. host: in arkansas? guest: yes, and across the nation is being implemented. it is critically important for parents to know. but also, we have to change the environment in which kids live every day. if the first lady is having to change things she is doing in her arousal, many people need to be aware of what they can do to change things in their households. host: democratic line for dr. dobson. caller: i was wondering what the relationship is between -- when you first recording about this -- the importing corn syrup in our fruits and having all these kids eat it. everything you pick up now as
corn syrup in it and i do not think that is good. i think we need to go back to plame sugars or whatever. guest: this is one of the important policy changes that will be faced with in this decade. 35 years ago we started a school breakfast and lunch program because we had hungry kids and we also serve the farm subsidy program because needed to stabilize our farm production. 35 years that we do have a preponderance of corn based products in the system. we need to take the school breakfast and lunch programs and reshape what we are feeding our kids to draw on fruits and vegetables to be locally produced to balance the diet they are getting. host: and part of the reason you're here in washington this week is to try to move these policy changes forward in washington, correct? guest: we are trying to build a movement. i think there is a movement nationwide. local communities are looking at local farm to school programs. states are looking at what they
can do to make changes to require physical activity. host: locally, what is the best program you have seen to deal with the issue guest: we have seen all communities take on their nutritional aspects of their guests -- cafeterias. some of our schools have done taste tests to see what friedan vegetables the kids like so they are not wasting resources. the other thing they're trying to make sure is that vending machines are closed during the lunch time frame. and finally, some of the changes in the communities where we are reconnecting with parks and the play space so the kids can get outside and enjoy playing. host: paul, in greenwood, good morning. caller: and is wondering if that might be a reason why -- because
when people get overweighed they are not as productive, energetic. that may be a reason why jobs are leaving going to other countries. if you and have people overweight, they will not be as energetic and as good a producer as they used to be. guest: in arkansas, we actually looked at our state employees to see how many were obese and how many were physically inactive. we found that their health-care costs are higher, their productivity -- levels are lower, and we have concentrated our resources to make changes. host: missouri, good morning. caller: i've been concerned about the children of the boomer generation for some time. they do not seem to have the
same work ethic that their parents had. i have lived here for 15 years and in that time when to college and high-school year. i have yet to have any young child or young person knock on my door and asked if i need more -- and need my snow shovel or the walks cleaned. it is just different than it once was. host: that goes back to a previous caller talking about economically. guest: and i think a lot of parents are afraid to let their kids go out and walk the streets and knock and doors tose to do. i think that we need to work on safety insecurities about our kids can get out and be active once again.
annapolis junction in maryland, good morning to go on the democrats line. caller: i believe the lady earlier that until we are able to get corporate money out of our election cycles -- because they're the ones being paid to elect our elected officials and they have undue access. we do not have any way of combating obesity because of the food industry's control over elected officials, or water or air or energy, schools, we do
not have any control over that. especially since the supreme court's ruling last week giving unfettered access -- unfettered control of our elections to corporations. guest: let me say on the health size at -- the health aside as opposed to the legal side of the supreme court, but i do not think any corporation would intentionally cause this obesity epidemic with our children. but it is open for corporations to step forward and help us solve this issue. whether it is the soft drink industry or the article drew industry, we got to come together if we want to save our children. host: it may be tough in a tougher economic times for folks to buy food. i will play michelle obama's comments. >> in some cases it is access. parents have told me and i have seen it myself, they would love
nothing more than to keep -- to feed their kids healthy foods, but if you do not live anywhere near a place that sells fresh produce, it is very hard to accomplish that goal in other cases, the issue is just convenience. you know, at the end of a long day, and more and more families are experiencing these long days with two parents working and busy schedules. you just, and retired in you pick up the phone and you order a pizza or you go to the dresser. it is just easier. our modern-day life makes it very difficult for us to sit down and prepare the meal. and a lot of times it is affordability in these tough economic times. buying of the foods unfortunately, feels like a luxury for too many families. host: should talk about three things there, access, convenience, and affordability. guest: we have a real issue
with food supply in our nation. we have the urban are green and the rural areas were the only place to get food is at the gas station. if firm in philadelphia has tried to help solve this by bringing a grocery companies back into places where there were no access point for fresh fruit and vegetables. we're expecting families to feed their kids out here, we have to make sure they have available at affordable food and not just what is at the local gas station. host: erica on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i have two comments. one might take a position as a 43-year-old man who is uninsured in this country, verses my 73- year-old father gruba has been ill for years, but still healthy. i do not think the issue is just
obesity, but the overall lack of health care. our jobs do not offer the same thing that my father's generation offered. another thing is that as a pizza shop owner, i cannot believe we are not talking more about cards as opposed to just corn syrup. guest: what we have seen as far as the cost data show from our program with our kids and state employees, no matter what the fix is for health reform provide if we do not solve this obesity risk, it will sink the boat overturned. back to the carbohydrate question, there is no question that the total number of calories that kids are consuming is much more than they are burning off.
the clear challenge is to get that balance back in place. you can have a piece and a set of french fries and a code -- and a coke, but you've got to have a balance. you cannot have those everyday and at most meals. host: michigan, richard on the republican line. caller: i want to address the issue of schools requiring physical fitness. i think i was among one of the last generations that the school action required a passing grade in jim. -- in gym. i know a lot of parents were unhappy with their kids failing school. you have these bright, intelligent kid and they were not passing the muster on physical education. guest: this is another area where the policy change can make a difference. we have lost physical education
and in some schools, even recess. we think that if we will demming clause longer they will learn more. i think we have evidence in the pipeline that says that a healthy, active child is better -- will learn better than an overweight child. but there is pressure on whether we have the academic solely or academics and health in our school system. host: would have the public schools down for the physical education? guest: at one time we had 30 minutes required for every student, k through 12th grade. but we lost that overt pressure on new drug left behind ed decker the banks test scores. -- arnot no child left behind and academic test scores. host: is obesity the biggest
medical issue in your state? guest: is next to some comments about health insurance and access that are key issues every day. we have new no, -- new evidence nationwide that obesity may become a more damaging health risk than tobacco in the coming decades. in the institute of medicine the right that the prevalence of obesity is so high that it may reduce the life expectancy of children, to manage the overall . rochester, new york, on the line for bud. caller: could you give a bit more on the history of how high for goes corn syrup was approved
by the fda? and secondly, now that we know more about its metabolism, is there a chance for them to review it and start to restrict it legally? guest: i think we are increasingly understanding what our food supply does and how it impacts us. the u.s. department of agriculture runs to devote important programs. one is the farm subsidies that -- runs two important programs. what is the farm subsidies and the other is the school lunch programs. these work hand in hand. as reece of the its the frequent source of food so we put in our food and nutrition programs, we have got to we examine that. the report that you mentioned, and others that have guidelines for caloric intake are incorporated in two-hour lunch
programs. -- into our lunch programs. caller: in eastern europe, we all agree that the cost of obesity really about $1.5 trillion. everything goes to the food we eat. we cannot wait 10 years to change the policy. the joke -- the policy needs to be changed immediately. my mother was in school and poland during socialism and she was able to buy fresh apples, fresh potatoes. besides the exercise and nutrition, the immune system
[unintelligible] but today in america, it is exposed to all of those products. they go to 711 and drink the soda and the body cannot digest this. as a result of this, we have obesity. guest: one of the big changes in this movement will be development of vending corp. of locally grown fruits into our food supply. we have lost that in the last few decades where they usually come from farms in california, texas or florida. we need to expand that to, which will expand jobs for the local economy. and i think it helps provide an economic stimulus for the local economy that will be well received and beneficial to our health goals. host: back to this chart, the
rise of obesity amongst over from 1971 to 2006. of all the policy changes, plans more personal activity changes, how fast realistically can we expect these numbers to start coming down? guest: there robert wood johnson foundation committed four years ago half a billion dollars to this effort, which is what our senators trying to coordinate. i think in five years we should be able to demonstrate a reversal in the epidemic. if we make the right policy changes at the state and local level, we will see that lower level. it affects low-income communities and communities of color more. we may have to make additional investments in to those communities. caller: thank you, dr. thompson so much for bringing this to the public's attention.
i agree with you 100%. i think children learn their eating habits from adults and you are right -- and that we really need to increase the healthy eating habits -- you know, class is in our high schools and elementary schools, but we need to have them for adults also. the four biggest killers of americans are heart attacks, cancer, stroke, and diabetes. they're all diet related. and a much processed fruits and heavy meats. this is something president obama could really take the lead on and maybe both republicans and democrats could cooperate on this and maybe we could save billions on the health care bill. start with the adults and children. thank you so much.
guest: 01 to thank the caller for the comments and commendations. i would also like to challenge every employer across your viewership. see what you are selling to your employees and if they are not healthy snacks or healthy drinks, ask the vending company to change those. we have not played -- paid attention ito the environment that we are in every day and i think some small changes could benefit the nation. host: there is a published report on food marketed to children.
guest: let's face it, our bodies are fine-tuned and prepared to take cauvery's on and get ready for the next ice age. -- take calories' on and get ready for the next ice age. we really have not realised how influential that can be our children. some evidence shows that kids do not differentiate the commercial from the cartoon of until age 10, and yet we have commercials that market different food products. this is where the corporate sector could work -- could step up and help save for their children. host: mitchell, democratic collar. caller: i gather you grow up in the age where when sputnik was launched, there was a reversal of the system of how kids should progress.
meaning that we had a system that was working. physical education was working. there were kids in the south that were far exceeding the health progress, meaning they became athletes, they were getting what they needed. but then what happened was there was a reversal to focus on that and science when the russians exceeded us with the sputnik. so, we cut out programs, all of the fiscal education, our requirements for the kids and we made them sit in the cluster men did not let them remain out in the fields for fiscal education. a lot of us who grew up in this era of segregation knew what actually happened and therefore,
we're coming back like a hawk mentality. we come back to roost and should have kept all along those of the patterns. we have a healthy of leads that have proven there was a problem. guest: i want to emphasize is a balance. we have got to reestablish our gods. we of lost our eye on the ball and to help the kids coming out of the education system. parents want an educated, healthy child out of the plan that our students -- summerstage parents provide. host: in general, d.c. kids in your practice? guest: i see as many kids at probably out the back door as i do in my clinic. it is a problem and parents have
to be increasingly aware, because it is a threat to their children. host: when did your radar start to go up on this? guest: in arkansas, we raised a summit in 2002 because we recognize it when you went to the mall, the baseball park, when you go to the schools. we recognize there had been a shift. in 2003 we started making the changes in schools and communities. host: and your colleague, the u.s. surgeon general benjamin spoke about of last week outlining the need for a healthy and fit nation. here is where she had to say. >> for years we have been encouraging americans to eat more nutritious wheat, exercise regularly, and maintain healthy lifestyles. but for these things to happen,
americans need to live and to work in environments that support their efforts. there is growing consensus that we as a nation need to create communities and in garments were as you ever come about the choices are the easy choices. my vision for a healthy and fit nation is an attempt to change the national conversation from a - 1 about obesity and illness to a positive conversation about being healthy and being fit. host: she talked about changing the conversation from obesity to changing to a healthy and fit nation. specifically on policies, what is the most important policy that could be adopted by the federal government to address the issue? guest: i think dr. benjamin is going to be great and aita want to highlight something. -- and i want to highlight something. we ought to make the healthy choice be the easiest choice. right now that is not true.
the k-12 organization could put p back in school. the transportation bill has 3% of its moneys that are guaranteed not to go for highways. we could spend that in the environment around schools of the kids can walk and by crown -- bike to school. these could come out of existing laws. host: for parents who do not want their kids going off to the neighborhood park because they're concerned about what is going on, how do we change that? guest: here is an easy, low-cost solution. when gas prices go through the roof and local police department after figure out how to cut the time they are running, have them stop every 50 minutes they are out and the park will become safe and it will be a place for the kids can come back and the reintegrate our security with our communities and reiterates the safety of families. host: let's go to john on the
independent line. caller: i just wanted to mention two great documentaries on food and nutrition and they are, a of a group food inc." -- they are "food inc." and "medic cowboy." those changed my life. host: what is the biggest change in your diet? caller: i cut out gary completely, and that was the first thing. i know the doctor may disagree with me on this, but i feel that with all of the chemicals that they pumped into these animals, it is just not safe anymore. it is safer to go vegetables and fruits, nuts and berries and eat a bit more naturally. host: but kids have specifically nutritional needs that have to be addressed. the city give up dairy.
guest: example, the federal infants and within children that offers food assistance to pregnant women and infants, only recently did they allow lowfat milk and fruit and vegetables to be a part of the program. for decades it was whole milk, which is really too fat laden for the children's needs. host: indianapolis, paul on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i have a quick question for the doctor. wouldn't it be better for our schools to stop all of -- stop offering the alternative could food lines like we have with the embers and french fries? you cannot expect children to make wise choices, even through high school. wouldn't it be better if we simply did not allow the kind of
food in the schools? secondly, vegetables and fruits that are harvested -- that are harvested and then frozen and processed within eight hours are actually a healthier than those that were harvested a week ago and still on the farmer's market shelf. guest: the fresher the fruits and vegetables, the better they will be for those who consume them. the breakfast and lunch program governs only what is in the cafeterias right now. would the hallway or sold anywhere else on campus is not governed by the federal school lunch program. what we need is to make sure that the same standard that the institute of medicine calls for in the cafeterias and is applied across the schoolyard, throughout all of the school buildings to make sure that kids are getting all the options, regardless of where they come from. they are held to the same standard. host: let's go to cindy in
michigan. caller: i am happy to speak with you. this is a big issue for me. when i was a young child until about five or six when i started to grade school, i would say my appetite was normal. i do not remember ever binging or having problems. once i started school, my mother started working and i was home by myself pretty much unsupervised. a lot of the problem i see the children -- and i did have an obesity problem as an adult and i see a lot of it now as out of context eating. eating when we are not hungry, eating what we do not even know what our appetite feels like. in context eating would be with the family at mealtime or having a sandwich at lunch or when you're actually hungry.
the whole conversation hearing from different callers calling in, let's cut out this food or the food, i think it is the same as when i used to diet. i tried to manage the food and then never related any of it to what i was feeling while i was eating. i think for children, it is a matter of watching your parents. it is mealtime a good time or is mealtime a time when everybody is fighting in carrying on conversations that are difficult? and having a lot of stress and activity at mealtime is that of being pleasant with food as not the focus. guest: i think that the reestablishment of family meal time and normal eating patterns is a critically important factor. the pressure on families, candidly, for time is pushing against that. i can sit down with a bag of
chips in front of the tv and the ball game by myself and somebody else comes and ease the whole bag of chips before the ball game is over. it is a clear issue. reestablishing those mealtimes, but also making sure that the food and the 21st century sources are actually offering appearance healthy foods, not that everything is drive- through and fried food because of time pressure on families. host: it actually creates more than -- more demand on the body. guest: we have seen a growth in the portion size in the past decades. and that is in part because the foods themselves have become cheaper and because eating out has become one of the less expensive forms of family entertainment. we have entered -- we have entangled all of this together and we're boyd to have to push ourselves to limit the portion
size and to think about what's we are eating. host: a comment from a viewer onta twitter by marion. she says not all obesity is related to what people lead, but is genetic. on this chart, how much is genetic? guest: the doubling of obesity for adults, the tripling for children is not because of genetics. our genetics have not changed in the last few decades. if you believe evolution, and that takes centuries for that to happen. it is because we have changed the cowger is that we are eating and burning off fewer calories and is affecting our children's weight. guest: i think we have some
serious questions to ask our article drew industry and our scientific community. i do not think all of the questions are in yet about how to deal with corn syrup, but i think the base of our court in take rest in highly processed foods in which that substance is an ingredient of. host: pamela, good morning. a caller: i'm calling as someone who works in the school and the issue are want to address is that we do not need to just make an option for students to read healthy. we need to make up the only option. these kids are 6 and 7 years old and as you mentioned before, they are inclined to go toward the sodas and the higher sugars like gatorade and things like that. that is what they are going to do. we need to make these decisions for them because they're so young. the other thing i want to address is the lack of
production that i see in my students from too many cars. -- to many carbohydrates. you have the students who walk into your class after lunch and fall asleep and you ask them what they have for lunch and, well, they had three roles and cheese. it is a complete lack of energy from eating these foods. one of the most important issues that i wanted to address is the level of hormones in the foods causing some issues with my adolescence students. one of them is particularly in women, we have the students starting their period when they are 11, 12 years old. while that might not be something that directly affects things right away, we see all of these issues with teen pregnancy. you have kids with their hormones beginning at 12 years old.
host: what grade do you teach or are involved in? i think she is gone. a lot there to talk about. guest: one of the easiest things we did in arkansas was to take vending machines out of elementary schools. parents should not have to worry that when they send their kids to school with lunch money that they are buying a soda and a deck of chips. and we continue to have parents afford to improve nutrition in our schools. i think that is a nationwide probability. the the thing i would say is if the science is developing and we need to look at our food supply to better understand what harm we may be causing and what safeguards we can put in place. the final thing i would say is having had a chance to speak with some of the leaders in the food industry, i think that those companies see that those businesses they get